Difference between revisions of "Π polarizability Meeting Apr 15, 2020"

From GlueXWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "=Meeting Info.= == Meeting Time And Location == 9:00 EST (JLab time) CC L207 ==Connecting== <div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> You can connect using [https...")
 
Line 57: Line 57:
 
== Minutes ==
 
== Minutes ==
  
''TBD''
+
Attendees: Albert F., Andrew S., Elton S., Iliya L., Mark I., Rory M., Nick B., Vambow
 +
 
 +
 
 +
=== Engineering ===
 +
* Tim sent e-mail a few days ago asking about alignment requirements of absorbers and chambers
 +
** is +/-4mm good enough
 +
** what about reproducibility if platform must be moved
 +
* General consensus was that 4mm will not be accurate enough given the size of the beam spot and holes.
 +
* Some top-of-the-head estimates that we'll need at least +/-2mm and possibly even better
 +
* Elton noted that +/-1mm will probably be pretty difficult but we'll need to discuss it with Tim
 +
* Iliya suggested a different spec. for the upstream Pb absorber than other components may be an option since that will be stopping most of the low energy beam halo
 +
* Rory will respond to Tim's e-mail and ask if we can schedule a meeting next week to discuss it
 +
 
 +
== e+e- Simulation ==
 +
* Andrew has made some progress in calculating the acceptance of e+e- events as a function of invariant mass.
 +
** expanded cut on &theta; to be >0.75<sup>o</sup> as opposed to previous cut of >0.1<sup>o</sup>
 +
** acceptance peak dropped to below 1.0 (previously it had been >3)
 +
** discussed the possibility of floating point round off errors, but unable to clearly identify that as source.
 +
* Some work has started on MVA
 +
 
 +
== Jeopardy ==
 +
* Suggested schedule from Bob M. was to keep new proposals due June 1st (no change) and give Jeopardy proposals an extra 2 weeks (June 15th).
 +
* Schedule not finalized yet and will depend on negotiations between PAC members and lab management
 +
* Rory will set up LateX document with outline so we can start working on it.

Revision as of 10:39, 15 April 2020

Meeting Info.

Meeting Time And Location

9:00 EST (JLab time)

CC L207

Connecting

You can connect using BlueJeans Video conferencing (ID: 949 429 419). (Click "Expand" to the right for details -->):

  1. Make sure you have created a BlueJeans account via your JLab CUE account using this link:

  2. Meeting ID: 949 429 419
    • (you may need to type this in, depending how you connect)

  3. If connecting via Web Browser: click this link (no passcode is needed):

  4. If connecting via iOS or Android App:
    • Use your JLab e-mail address to log in and then enter the meeting ID given above to join the meeting

  5. If connecting via Phone: Dial one of the following numbers and then enter the meeting ID above and hit "#" or "##"

  6. If connecting via Polycom unit:
    • Dial 199.48.152.152 or bjn.vc
    • Enter meeting ID above



  1. Previous meeting: Apr 8, 2020
  2. Announcements
  3. Update on Engineering/Design
    1. April 2, 2020 CPP Design Meeting
    2. Screen Shots of Mechanical Design Apr 2
  4. Data Analysis - Andrew
  5. BH sensitivity to form factors (Rory)
  6. Preparations for Jeopardy
  7. Other business
  8. Next meeting


Minutes

Attendees: Albert F., Andrew S., Elton S., Iliya L., Mark I., Rory M., Nick B., Vambow


Engineering

  • Tim sent e-mail a few days ago asking about alignment requirements of absorbers and chambers
    • is +/-4mm good enough
    • what about reproducibility if platform must be moved
  • General consensus was that 4mm will not be accurate enough given the size of the beam spot and holes.
  • Some top-of-the-head estimates that we'll need at least +/-2mm and possibly even better
  • Elton noted that +/-1mm will probably be pretty difficult but we'll need to discuss it with Tim
  • Iliya suggested a different spec. for the upstream Pb absorber than other components may be an option since that will be stopping most of the low energy beam halo
  • Rory will respond to Tim's e-mail and ask if we can schedule a meeting next week to discuss it

e+e- Simulation

  • Andrew has made some progress in calculating the acceptance of e+e- events as a function of invariant mass.
    • expanded cut on θ to be >0.75o as opposed to previous cut of >0.1o
    • acceptance peak dropped to below 1.0 (previously it had been >3)
    • discussed the possibility of floating point round off errors, but unable to clearly identify that as source.
  • Some work has started on MVA

Jeopardy

  • Suggested schedule from Bob M. was to keep new proposals due June 1st (no change) and give Jeopardy proposals an extra 2 weeks (June 15th).
  • Schedule not finalized yet and will depend on negotiations between PAC members and lab management
  • Rory will set up LateX document with outline so we can start working on it.